You know, G.T., we don't make anybody do anything, at least directly. Again, I will use restrictions on auto emissions as a guide. Originally, it was California, then followed and strengthened by the US Government, that provided the leadership needed for the world on auto emission regulations. Certainly, Europe and Japan got on board. To be strong economically, you must be able to compete, and if you can innovate you win in the big scheme of things. It takes time, but there are results in the end. Do nothing, and the long term outcome is dismal.

Mac. ... The climate change authorities are clear that, despite the pause (yes, I know) warming will pick up. Even theories of why the Antarctic ice pack is steadily extending OWING to global warming have merit. (Fresh melt water rising to the surface and re-freezing more easily than sea water.)

I see no concensus though as to whether warming will recommence at a steady pace, or suddenly come in with a bang, so to speak. I liken it to volcanic eruptions. Some belch and burp and 'let off' in a regular manner, (tourist attractions with folks gawping into the crater), or bottle it up to sudenly explode as Krakatoa and Vesuvious once did. (Why DO people risk living in Pompeii after what happened in Roman times? It's way overdue to do it again.)

What bothers me though, is how to explain the many intelligent and well versed in science, and who have no motive to deny warming, who are adamant that man assisted global warming is a myth.? They are not just cranks.

They refuse to accept a direct correlation between temperature rise and atmospheric CO2 levels, and they do have some evidence on their side. As they point out, the cosy correlation in graphs, going back over the decades, between atmospheric CO2 levels and measured temperatures is fraudulent.

The computer predictions shown on them are RETROSPECTIVE, (i.e. produced with hindsight, and not at the actual time), to neatly tally with global warming theory. Their falsity is shown when the present day concentration of CO2 does NOT produce the neat rise in temperatures suggested by the graph.

Global warmers did a great disservice to their cause by using dubious science, and more and more people are turning against them. I think those rejecting the warming (to come) are wrong. But they won't be convinced now, especially as we shiver in our coldest Arctic) spring on record! (Yes, yes, I know, but such is life!)

GT--I think extremists of both camps are to be corrected, and despised if they proceed from a conflict of interest. But I've been watching the science since the mid-1980's, and the trend is clear. The science is clear that there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature. But we don't know the constants, nor understand the chaos, nor the confounding factors.

I'm not sure what you mean by dubious science, as opposed to mistakes. Gore's movie certainly took an alarmist tone, and had a few relatively small mistakes--the man is a politician with a science background, not a scientist. I hew a little closer to Stephen Schneider, even though I am a Cal guy. http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/ Schneider, among others, was subject to relentless attacks from the deniers trying to cut off his funding through fair and foul means. He responded by taking a higher profile in trying to influence public policy. So I would argue that those with deep understanding of climate science decided to respond to the well funded (by coal and oil industries) denier public relations efforts with their own efforts, backed by actual science. I find it ironic that mrgybe now denies his early posts on this subject, where he likened public opinion to the appropriate response. This of course happened with massive funding from those trying to avoid any regulation of carbon emissions, and cooperation from the Murdoch empire. Of course, the fury of last years storms changed public opinion back to the point where 4 out of 5 in America want something done, and Obama has found a little courage on the subject.

The well-funded denier consultants found a total of 3 or 4 errors, and a possible conflict of interest, in the entire body of work by the IPCC. Of course, little of that work was done by the IPCC leadership, the 2007 report collected data and studies done by panel members and other scientists. Screeching about doubt based on these errors, as many have done and mrgybe has repeated here, is an utter failure in critical thinking, or lack of any basic objectivity.

What should be done about climate change is another matter. I have not impugned the motives of those who would be cautious; I share their view. I have even given them links to academically acceptable work that makes that point. But Lord Monckton? Please.

You may wonder at the "heat" I generate. I have a role in evaluating and establishing California's responses to climate change--along with a host of others. That goes with a responsibility to keep an open mind. For years I tracked references back to original sources, hoping that there would be responsible new science that would convince me the problem was less serious. I used my colleague Andy Gunther http://www.cemar.org/staff.html, and asked him many questions about citations that seemed to have merit. I never had a single citation reveal a peer-reviewed study that shook the foundation of the consensus on climate science. Instead, all of them tracked back to denier sites funded by carbon money, or newspaper opinion pieces devoid of any background in science. I admit I should have been more careful in dismissing the Guardian, and made a substantive response that weather is not climate trend. But even where some post things with some thought behind them (Isobars, who has cited Bjorn Lomberg's work), they fundamentally misstate the conclusions when you actually check the sources. At some point I believe I have done due dilligence, and can make fun of the apologists. Much more human than admirable, but then there you are.

Mac. ....Sorry to keep on about it but, It seems to me that, taking the whole of the earths geological history from semi molten days through to the present, that a runaway CO2 greenhouse effect would just not be possible, or certainly not possible to maintain for any length of time.

If such could have happened, it would have, and earth, like Venus, would be uninhabitable. I remember discussions on this in the 1950's, but global warming wasn't really on the agenda in those days. It was just musing, with a few 'cranks' showing alarm1

It seems to me that the reason some sensible scientists refuse to accept that high CO2 levels are disastrous must be because they are convinced that the Earth, at 90+ million miles from the sun, and with our ocean protection, cannot sustain a greenhouse effect.

I'm only guessing, but going on instinct (and earths geological history) perhaps it would only be possible to sustain a moderate or partial greenhouse rise in temperature, and that only for a limited geological period before reverting to the Earths normal or default condition.

It does seem to me that earths systems have guaranteed a long term stability, whatever has been 'chucked' at them. (Asteroids, volcanos, Ice Ages, and suns hiccups!)

GT, the issue concerning humans becomes irrelevant far prior to any atmosphere of Venus or the inside of a volcano. For us, a the atmosphere only needs to "run away" a few degrees before life for all changes dramatically. Acidification of the oceans increases and land-based life shifts in a few seasons. More than a few degrees brings flooding unprecedented in recorded history, as the land-based glaciers melt and dump all their water into rivers and oceans, while others simply slide into the sea and raise the level even more equal to the ice's volume.

We don't need temps of 460 C to fall victim to global warning.

Forgive me, but it seems many think the earth can recover the atmosphere (speaking broadly) we now enjoy for the most part with plenty of time to spare. How much time do you think those of us in temperate climates would survive if temps never dropped below 48 C? For most of us, we'd be dead in a few months. Do you think the earth could stop a temp rise at 48 C and reverse to something we could endure within a few weeks? I doubt that very much._________________Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org

GT--the very difficult thing for non-technical audiences is understanding what a relatively small change in average temperature means. From the first studies on CO2/temperature relationships, atmospheric scientists realized that there are mechanisms in place on the planet to damp the effect. The three of greatest significance are a) increased growth of vegetation; b) absorption of CO2 by ocean waters, and 3) increased cloud cover--which allows less heat to reach the surface, but increases trapping. Estimating these phenomena on a planetary scale is very difficult, but good quality studies show that ocean acidification because of CO2 absorption is happening. It is killing coral and changing ocean ecology as well.

Back to the aha factor. The less alarmist modelers have predicted a temperature increase of 2 to 4 degrees, and we have seen an increase of 1 to 1.5 degrees. To the non-scientist, who lives in an environment with seasonal variations of more than 100 degrees, and daily variations of perhaps 40 degrees, this seems very minor. It takes a little deeper thought, and perhaps some technical background, to realize that any system that integrates temperature--the oceans and glaciers most notably--will begin to change profoundly with such seemingly minor changes. Consider only the capacity of the oceans to generate cyclonic storms, and consider the addition of 2 or more degrees of heat over the vast expanses that contribute to such storms. All of that heat is energy that can be transmitted to the atmosphere and increase the power of hurricanes and cyclones. And so forth.

There is no doubt that the carbon industries have indulged in a well funded disinformation campaign to protect their profits. The only accurate accusation that mrgybe has made of my comments in this vein are that I exaggerated the amount of spending from many millions to billions. For a while it was effective--and so bragged the oily one. Now opinion has shifted, and it might again. But opinion does not drive science.

Ah well! I stand corrected Dan and Mac, and not for the first time. (Or likely, the last.) But I can't help wishing that you were both mistaken in tour predictions.

Caring about the future of the human race (genetically bred into us by evolution, I expect) means that looming dangers nag away at us, in the background of our minds. It can be a form of relief to latch onto half reasonable hopes, and would be cause for celebration if difinitive proof that the worst wasn't going to happen (or just a teensy bit so, perhaps) could be found after all.

The world has made almost no progress over the past 20 years in reducing the carbon content of its energy supplies, despite more than $2 trillion of investment into renewable-energy projects such as wind and solar power, the International Energy Agency said on Wednesday. ... Carbon-dioxide emissions from each unit of energy consumed have fallen by less than 1%.

The IEA estimates that a cut in carbon emissions per unit of energy of more than 60% is needed to prevent global average temperatures rising by more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the long term ... "The drive to clean up the world's energy system has stalled,"

"had there not been any climate-protection policies over the past few years, the world's greenhouse-gas emissions would have increased even more", he said. [Prove it]

Popular support for renewable-energy subsidies is also falling. [WELL, FRICKING DUH!; we can read, and we're not all politically driven.]

~~~~~~
Everyone knows CO2 greenhouse effects are self-limiting; they plateau. Thus each extra trillion, or quadrillion, or gazillion dollars poured down this swirling toilet by alarmist ideologues reaps far fewer, not more, results than the last.

Every once in a while Iso gets a fact right, and then doesn't know what to do with it. But pretty much whatever Rush tells him he'll try. Now he quotes the Wall Street Journal to say that carbon is still rising (duh) and that it would take massive cuts to prevent a temperature increase of 3.6 degrees.

Quote:

The IEA estimates that a cut in carbon emissions per unit of energy of more than 60% is needed to prevent global average temperatures rising by more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the long term ... "The drive to clean up the world's energy system has stalled

This much is correct; it is too late to prevent long term climate change. That's not news to anyone paying attention to credible sources. The IEA is projecting or modeling a temperature increase of 3.6 degrees, but nobody knows if that is what will happen. Iso is right that there are factors that damp the impact of both atmospheric buildup of CO2 and temperature increases.

Of course this is a reversal of course for Iso, and other deniers, who said at various times the earth isn't really warming, warming if it is occuring as part of a natural cycle, we're headed for an ice age, yada yada yada, depending on what the carbon lobby told Rush to tell the ditto-heads.

But the simple ignorance of the conclusion is boggling, particularly someone who claims to have some technical background. An increase in average temperature of 2 or 3 degrees means that every bit of ice that is within 2 degrees of the freezing point will start to melt. Not a problem for the antarctic, which is much colder than that (for the most part)--but a collosal problem for much of the ice stored on land. The cost will be many trillions. But as the ditto heads say, when the oil companies tell them to, just enjoy the warm winters! I think that hell will be just the right temperature for those who made big money lying about global warming.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum